Why Democrats are so Obstructionist

Congressional Republicans are puzzled by the intransigent opposition and obstructionist
tactics of the Democrats in Congress, according to
Gary Andres.
They recall the good old days when they were in the minority. They
would always put up a “comprehensive alternative” to the legislation proposed by the Democrats, and
suffer good naturedly as it went down to certain defeat.

But the minority Democrats of the twenty-first century don’t play by those rules. They
“rarely offer comprehensive alternatives to major Republican initiatives, choosing instead to
propose politically embarrassing rifle-shot amendments or none at all.”

Why are they acting so obstructionist? The truth is that ongressional Democrats seem to be merely responding to the wishes of their party.

Some of the loudest and most influential voices in the Democratic Party --
such as Simon Rosenberg of the New Democratic Network, and blogger Markos Moulitsas from the Daily Kos -- care more about creating acrimony than alternatives. These activists dominate party voters, volunteers and contributors, and their message to
Democratic congressional leaders is clear -- combat yes, consensus no

But it is not just obstreperous activists that move the Democrats to obstruction. Their political
philosophy argues that as well. It was, after all, as recently as 2000 when Al Gore ran for president
to fight for the people against the powerful. Deep in Democratic hearts is the feeling that without
a powerful and compassionate government run by them the nation will descend into oppression and
victimization. Workers will lose their benefits, women will be dying from botched abortions, and old people will starve in their beds.
Democrats really believe that stuff, and that
is why the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee were insistent in
asking Judge Roberts how he proposed to defend peoples’ rights.

And let us not forget the influence of the academy that has been teaching the nation’s youth for
a generation that everything political comes down to racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia—in other
words, irreconcilable conflict.

Republicans had better stop complaining about the Democrats. They will always be petty and obstructionist
in opposition. Republicans should figure out how to turn the negativism to their advantage.

But at least the Democrats still have moderate folk like
Mickey Kaus. He argues against the mindless progressivism
of Matthew Yglesias that Democrats need the unions and should fight to keep the
Depression era Davis-Bacon Act that pegs construction wage rates for
public projects at union-defined
“prevailing” rates.

If union members constitute a mere 8 percent of the private sector work force, doesn’t that
mean that most Americans don’t feel the need to have unions fight for the people against the powerful?